Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And there's no way his entirely west-end Ottawa PC caucus let's him gut Stage 2. The only risk, and it's admittedly a long shot, is that they cancel Confederation Line East and use that money to push deeper into Kanata and get to Barrhaven.

I think you could see phase two broken up into a number of phases, particularly given RTG's delivery problems.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think you could see phase two broken up into a number of phases, particularly given RTG's delivery problems.

That should be easy since it's really 3 different projects anyway, they were just lumped into one so that they could get the funding in one fell swoop

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Based on what ive seen subway systems usially move at least 40,000 pphpd. confederation line falls wau short of this.

I'm pretty sure Yonge Line's capacity is around 33,000 pphpd and it's one of the busiest subway lines on the continent. I wouldn't be surprised if Confederation Line after Stage 2 moves more people than some subway lines in the US.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think you could see phase two broken up into a number of phases, particularly given RTG's delivery problems.

Could be broken up. But I'm not sure what RTG has to do with it, given that they're not involved in construction of either Confederation Line extension.

Also, to use the delays as an excuse to cut or delay construction is really going to screw over PC politicians in the West End.

Could it happen? Maybe. But highly unlikely
Delays would be all around as the bidding process would have to be relaunched for at least the Confederation Line. Probably higher prices too as the schedule changes. All while the extra LRVs ordered start piling up in the depot.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I'm pretty sure Yonge Line's capacity is around 33,000 pphpd and it's one of the busiest subway lines on the continent. I wouldn't be surprised if Confederation Line after Stage 2 moves more people than some subway lines in the US.

Some? How about most? I would bet money there's no subway line outside New York, Chicago and DC that will move more pax than the Confederation Line.

As a point of comparison, the six lines of the LA Metro only have 20 000 more daily boardings than OC Transpo. And LA County alone has over 10 million residents. Let alone the metro population.

[Hybrid247]

But those cities you named probably account for more than half the subway lines in the entire country.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I'm pretty sure Yonge Line's capacity is around 33,000 pphpd and it's one of the busiest subway lines on the continent. I wouldn't be surprised if Confederation Line after Stage 2 moves more people than some subway lines in the US.

According to this article, the Yonge–University Line had a capacity of 28,000 pphpd in 2015 though was running 11% over capacity (Wikipedia says demand was 31,200 pphpd in 2015, which works out). Adding ATC would increase capacity to 36,000 pphpd and expected demand will be 40,200 pphpd in 2031.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to this article, the Yonge–University Line had a capacity of 28,000 pphpd in 2015 though was running 11% over capacity (Wikipedia says demand was 31,200 pphpd in 2015, which works out). Adding ATC would increase capacity to 36,000 pphpd and expected demand will be 40,200 pphpd in 2031.

You're right. I got my numbers mixed up. I was thinking of the new capacity with ATC, which would increase to 32,000 according to the TTC.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

But those cities you named probably account for more than half the subway lines in the entire country.

And those cities are substantially larger than Ottawa. But that's beside the point.

Arguing that an underground transit line doesn't count as a "subway" because it doesn't meet 40 000 pphpd is patently ridiculous. It would exclude a lot of transit lines in the world that most of the public and most transitfans would consider to be "subway". At least colloquially.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And those cities are substantially larger than Ottawa. But that's beside the point.

Arguing that an underground transit line doesn't count as a "subway" because it doesn't meet 40 000 pphpd is patently ridiculous. It would exclude a lot of transit lines in the world that most of the public and most transitfans would consider to be "subway". At least colloquially.

I based my examples on New York City which has high transit usage. What i find is ridiculous is that you think line 1 will be a great success when it doesn't go as far until stage 2. There is a good chance ridership will drop because of the forced transfers. You should keep your expectations realistic until we see the results.


The other reason i used 40000 ppphpd was that you mentioned ottawa should go to heavy rail once they reach those numbers on line 1.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I based my examples on New York City which has high transit usage.

So you are using one of the top 10, busiest metro systems in the world as the minimum requirement for a subway?

The other reason i used 40000 ppphpd was that you mentioned ottawa should go to heavy rail once they reach those numbers on line 1.

Truenorth00 was getting a little ahead of himself. Only the worlds largest cites get that kind of ridership on a single line, and, AFAIK, none of them funnel everyone onto a single line.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Could be broken up. But I'm not sure what RTG has to do with it, given that they're not involved in construction of either Confederation Line extension.

Also, to use the delays as an excuse to cut or delay construction is really going to screw over PC politicians in the West End.

Could it happen? Maybe. But highly unlikely
Delays would be all around as the bidding process would have to be relaunched for at least the Confederation Line. Probably higher prices too as the schedule changes. All while the extra LRVs ordered start piling up in the depot.

There is really only one vulnerable riding on the West side. The East side has no Tory MPs, so it is hard to see a lot of political consequences.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I based my examples on New York City which has high transit usage.

Which is an extremely narrow example. By your standard most of Europe doesn't have subways either. There's a lot of European "subway"/metro lines that aren't at 40 000 pphpd either.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

What i find is ridiculous is that you think line 1 will be a great success when it doesn't go as far until stage 2.

A transit line's utility is usually measured on the number of pax carried, not on the number of km it runs.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

There is a good chance ridership will drop because of the forced transfers.

Compared to a period of construction riding buses? Could it happen? Maybe. Likely? I doubt it. The Confederation Line even with that forced transfer will be a lot more comfortable than a slow bus ride through a congested downtown transit network.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

You should keep your expectations realistic until we see the results.

And you should temper that unbounded pessimism to something at least approaching realistic.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The other reason i used 40000 ppphpd was that you mentioned ottawa should go to heavy rail once they reach those numbers on line 1.

That's a matter of practicality. If Line 1 were to ever reach 40 000 pphpd, it'd be pretty damn hard, and probably impossible, to move that many riders using light rail vehicles. But if Ottawa even reaches 20 000+ pphpd through the downtown, it'll be time to start discussing a second line through the core.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A transit line's utility is usually measured on the number of pax carried, not on the number of km it runs.

Umm. Both are used but they tell you totally different things.

That's a matter of practicality. If Line 1 were to ever reach 40 000 pphpd, it'd be pretty damn hard, and probably impossible, to move that many riders using light rail vehicles.

Oh. I thought you said it could be expanded to 40,000 PPHPD. I’m not convinced that would be possible without significant infrastructure changes (it would mean 1.5 m service with 1000 passenger trains and I think both are a stretch).

But if Ottawa even reaches 20 000+ pphpd through the downtown, it'll be time to start discussing a second line through the core.

Ahh. I was under the (false?) impression that you didn’t think we should build a second line until we approached 40,000 pphpd. My bad.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is really only one vulnerable riding on the West side. The East side has no Tory MPs, so it is hard to see a lot of political consequences.

Exactly. Which is why I said the idea that there's going to be political interference which shuts down or substantially delays Stage 2 is pretty far fetched. The FUD on here gets over the top sometimes.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And those cities are substantially larger than Ottawa. But that's beside the point.

Because over half of America's subway lines are in those cities, I don't think it's fair to say that Confederation Line will be busier than most subway lines in America. That's what I was trying to imply.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Umm. Both are used but they tell you totally different things.

What exactly does line length tell you that's useful? Usually, it's meant to imply a larger catchment which is supposed to be a secondary indicator of ridership.

It all comes back to ridership. The more a line carries, the more useful it is. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Oh. I thought you said it could be expanded to 40,000 PPHPD.

An exclusive, fully segregated ROW can indeed carry that many. That doesn't mean the Confederation Line as constituted can do that. There would have to be changes on everything from rail vehicles, to signaling/control to maybe even platform height.

Originally Posted by roger1818

’m not convinced that would be possible without significant infrastructure changes (it would mean 1.5 m service with 1000 passenger trains and I think both are a stretch).

Agreed. Never meant to imply it did.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ahh. I was under the (false?) impression that you didn’t think we should build a second line until we approached 40,000 pphpd. My bad.

Apparently the max capacity of the Confederation Line is 24 000 pphpd:

http://www.octranspo.com/ready4rail/o_train_confederation_line_system_faqs

So clearly going above that would require some mods. The forecast says 18 000 pphpd in 2031. So I don't think a second downtown line even enters consideration until then. And at that point, it'll be a question of what's a better investment: a second line or upgrading the Confederation Line to heavy rail.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What exactly does line length tell you that's useful? Usually, it's meant to imply a larger catchment which is supposed to be a secondary indicator of ridership.

Investment and political will.

An exclusive, fully segregated ROW can indeed carry that many. That doesn't mean the Confederation Line as constituted can do that. There would have to be changes on everything from rail vehicles, to signaling/control to maybe even platform height.

Not sure much can be improved with our signaling/control system (without new technology that doesn’t exist yet). We would probably need even longer platforms than planned for though, which would be expensive. The only way I can see is doing better than the minimum 1:50 frequency planned (see below) would be to switch to Linear Induction Motors (LIM) like SkyTrain, but that would be incredibly expensive as the entire ROW would have to be upgraded and for the small benefit it would give, I can’t imagine it being worth the cost (it would probably be cheaper to dig a second tunnel). .

Apparently the max capacity of the Confederation Line is 24 000 pphpd:

Yup. So with extended trains with a total capacity of 740 that works out to a maximum frequency of 1:50 (as I stated above).

So clearly going above that would require some mods. The forecast says 18 000 pphpd in 2031. So I don't think a second downtown line even enters consideration until then. And at that point, it'll be a question of what's a better investment: a second line or upgrading the Confederation Line to heavy rail.

2031 is in only 13 years. I was suggesting in 20 to 30 years. By then we should be above 20,000 pphpd (unless demand growth is slower than expected).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Investment and political will.

How does line length tell you that?

I would argue per km spending tells you more about those things. What requires more will? The subways that cost $1.5-2-5 billion per mile or an LRT in an existing corridor that would cost tens of million per km to upgrade (Trillium Line is at $34M per km).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not sure much can be improved with our signaling/control system (without new technology that doesn’t exist yet). We would probably need even longer platforms than planned for though, which would be expensive. The only way I can see is doing better than the minimum 1:50 frequency planned (see below) would be to switch to Linear Induction Motors (LIM) like SkyTrain, but that would be incredibly expensive as the entire ROW would have to be upgraded and for the small benefit it would give, I can’t imagine it being worth the cost (it would probably be cheaper to dig a second tunnel).

I doubt you need LIMs or something like that. Lines carrying that many passengers are simply regular heavy rail metros. That's what the Confederation Line would need to be to handle that kind of load.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yup. So with extended trains with a total capacity of 740 that works out to a maximum frequency of 1:50 (as I stated above).

Assuming the same rolling stock and same configuration....

Originally Posted by roger1818

2031 is in only 13 years. I was suggesting in 20 to 30 years. By then we should be above 20,000 pphpd (unless demand growth is slower than expected).

Getting to 18 000 from 10 700 projected at launch is 68% growth in 13 years. I do think they are sandbagging a bit and we'll probably see > 11 000 at launch and probably closer to 20 000 by 2031. But a lot of that I believe is because transit demand has been held back by the horrible experience of crawling buses through downtown. We may get back to 20 000 pphpd and then see much slower growth from there as feeder service starts driving growth more and more.

[Truenorth00]

I am most curious about the minor deficiencies Manconi mentioned. I am hoping they are putting pressure on RTG to whittle down that list while the system is still closed and they aren't being hampered by service. If we're going to be delayed, it'd be nice to get the keys in a few months to a system that requires little to no work.